> > "The other poster was like shrug there isn't any such thing as true and false anyways"
> They didn't say that.
FWIW I did basically mean that. Specifically I don’t believe in any single universal objective truth. Even for “simple” things, they can have a lot of depth if you are willing to go down the rabbit hole. The complexity is inherent if only because you can’t really separate “one simple thing” from the rest of the messy, infinitely complex universe.
Of course there’s not much to debate about the truthfulness of trivial tautologies like in the triangle case but many things are more subjective than a naive person would assume.
We can all maybe agree on a lot of obvious “truths”, but IMHO it is a kind of arrogance to assume that if three reasonable people reach agreement among themselves, then everyone else should also accept the conclusion.
And if I may comment on this as well:
> If so, that's an incoherent philosophical belief none of us need to bother engaging.
I thought the common struggle of many famous philosophers was on how to be sure that they have found and described truth. Descartes was only sure about “I think therefore I am”. Kierkegaard thought it requires a “leap of faith”, and Wittgenstein thought communications is just a language game and does not have inherent meaning. Those are just a few examples.
I don’t think any of those people would just summarily accept that truths can be easily found by everyone and doubting it is philosophically incoherent.
> They didn't say that.
FWIW I did basically mean that. Specifically I don’t believe in any single universal objective truth. Even for “simple” things, they can have a lot of depth if you are willing to go down the rabbit hole. The complexity is inherent if only because you can’t really separate “one simple thing” from the rest of the messy, infinitely complex universe.
Of course there’s not much to debate about the truthfulness of trivial tautologies like in the triangle case but many things are more subjective than a naive person would assume.
We can all maybe agree on a lot of obvious “truths”, but IMHO it is a kind of arrogance to assume that if three reasonable people reach agreement among themselves, then everyone else should also accept the conclusion.
And if I may comment on this as well:
> If so, that's an incoherent philosophical belief none of us need to bother engaging.
I thought the common struggle of many famous philosophers was on how to be sure that they have found and described truth. Descartes was only sure about “I think therefore I am”. Kierkegaard thought it requires a “leap of faith”, and Wittgenstein thought communications is just a language game and does not have inherent meaning. Those are just a few examples.
I don’t think any of those people would just summarily accept that truths can be easily found by everyone and doubting it is philosophically incoherent.